Analysis of the level of comprehension of chemical hazard labels: a case for Zambia.

ABSTRACT

We have surveyed the impact of chemical hazard label elements on four target sectors, i.e. the agricultural, industrial, transport and the consumer (the general public) sectors, in order to assess the type of reactions the respondents perceive to a given chemical label element such as symbol, hazard phrase, color, and hazard signal word. The survey revealed that the level of education, gender and/or age did not influence the respondents' perception of the extent of hazard but rather familiarity or frequency of use of the chemicals and acquaintance with chemical label elements was significant in the assessment of the extent of perceived hazard posed by a given chemical. Symbols such as the St Andrews Cross--though common--is virtually not understood by more than 80% of the respondents in all the sectors. We noted that respondents appreciate symbols they can relate to, which are flame-like, ghost-like and exert immediate impacts to respondents. Color codes have found use in the agriculture sector because of their ease to be recalled especially by the majority of illiterate farm workers. The survey revealed that red in agricultural circles is well associated with high toxicity while other colors such as yellow and blue can not clearly be associated with hazard. The word "toxic" is not used in the industry and transport sectors where the most hazard signal word is "danger". The Globally Harmonized System (GHS) classification adopted "danger" and "warning" for use as signal words. The survey revealed that effective chemical hazard symbols must not be too abstract to the client but should contain features that are known or easily comprehended.